@@saintdonoghue "In library tour 2019 little book room#9 " you read a piece of honey tongued viciousness from Cyril Connolly with such gleeful abandon that the memory resonates and still prompts giddiness upon recollection..Moments StSteve. Moments..
Ogburn did a great job synthesizing and unifying a variety of sources. He mostly avoids strawmanning the Stratfordians by using lots of their quotes, many of which admit that the evidence is problematic. He does a great job on "upstart crow" and many Stratfordians no longer cite that reference. He is supplying real information about the 1595 reference -- a record of payment to Kempe, Burbage and WS created by the widow of a grantee. Ogburn points out the payment would/should have been to Heminges since that was his role in the business. I especially liked Ogburn's analysis of plays like Hamlet being reworked and getting longer and longer such that they are now never presented in their full form -- 5-hours. Clearly the final versions are for print. The idea that illiterate groundlings stood through 5 hours of dense soliloquies is a flawed by product of all the circular reasoning that has distorted our understanding of theater in that era. It is very easy see that it is impossible for Shakspeare of Stratford on Avon to be the author but as you point out, making a case for an alternative is the more difficult part. What seems to be emerging on both sides of the debate is the idea that not the poems and sonnets but the plays are the effort of many writers reworking material over and over. The "bad quartos" give us evidence of that. Perhaps the problem with looking for "the real author" is that it ignores the collaborative nature of theater in the same way that the Stratford theory does.
Shakspere (that is how his name is spelled in the will) left rings to some actors, which seems to connect him to the theater. But, Shakspere left nothing to any writers or poets, which doesn't connect him to writing at all. It should be noted that the gift of rings to the actors was written between the lines on the last page of the will, raising a suspicion that they were added at a later date after the will was already signed, casting a little doubt on the will itself.
@@stuartdurbin There seems to be a few suspicious elements going on here. I think that if the gifts were made when the will was written that the clerk simply would have added another sheet of paper and had Shakspere sign it. It appears that lines were added to a page that had already been signed, so there is no way to know if Shakspere made the gift when he made the will, or if it was added later without his knowledge. IF the gifts are a fake or fraud that were added later, I don't think anyone would have admitted it. Shakspere did die quite suddenly at a young age, supposedly after a night of drinking, just a month or so after composing his will, and a few months before the will was actually registered in London.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Shakespeare is thoroughly documented as being a member of the King's Men. John Heminges was even a witness when Shakespeare bought the gatehouse next to the Blackfriars Theater. A lawsuit brought by Shakespeare in Stratford described him as a member of the Court of King James.
@@Jeffhowardmeade What does "thoroughly documented as being a member of the King's Men" mean? Is this some kind of official term, or do you consider the two things you list as being the sum total requirement of "thoroughly documented"?
I'll point out in Edward de Vere's defense that the plays might have been written and in various stages of completion well before they were eventually published. In fact, it's likely they were written and had some small scale productions before official publication. So the discrepancy in dates between Oxford's death and the publications wouldn't rule him out as the prime candidate. But anyway, it's an interesting subject. I need to get to Ogburn's book eventually.
You need to familiarize with the case against Da Vere before arguing this. The entire concept of Tempest revolves around a shipwreck that occurred after Da Veer’s death for instance.
@@mikeprg There were several accounts of shipwrecks well before that. Oxford even owned a ship that got lost at the Bermudas. I'm not an Oxfordian, but it irks me how disingenuously the evidence regarding a claim is presented by Stratfordian scholars.
Part of me thinks that it doesn't really matter. It is the work that matters. The second thing is I do think snobbery is part of it. The possibility that a relative ordinary person could have an imagination like 'Shakespeare' and it must be a noble. Also would a noble writing plays really be that frowned upon. They wrote poetry all the time. I think also that bookish people underestimate the knowledge that you can pick up without books. Also Ben Johnson talks about Shakespeare. Didn't even write a poem to 'My Beloved Mr. William Shakespeare'. Which suggests that Ben Johnson knew him. Doesn't textual analysis demonstrate that whoever 'Shakespeare' was that he and Marlowe worked together on plays. My fundamental problem with the whole thing is why bother? Why 'invent' William Shakespeare. What would be the advantage? But you've got to know people who put on plays. Unless he's something like 'Luther Blisset' that Italian anarchist group that wrote under a single name. I agree there are so many gaps with Shakespeare but what if he was just a bloke who wrote for a bit then gave up. I know the idea that a part-time middle-class bloke from the sticks might have written some of the greatest works of literature seems ridiculous but perhaps it just happened. Anyway, as I said at the beginning in the end does it really matter?
De Vere would have known that Bohemia was land locked, and why would be hand over his best plays to a rival company and not the the acting company he himself patronized. Just a couple of examples of the silly idea that he wrote these plays.
I agree, the questions and oddities around Shakespeare's authorship are a fascinating topic - no alternate candidate required! (though they are interesting to hear out). Thanks for this discussion and recommendation.
The dates don't line up! Well, not exactly. The dates that don't line up are from timelines that were created AFTER Edward de Vere was identified as Shakespeare, i.e. the timelines were developed to exclude de Vere. Take them with a grain of salt.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Modern Chronologies are based on E.K. Chambers 1930 Work "The Problem of Chronology" , which was written and published at the height of the first wave of Oxfordian Theory. There can be no doubt that Chamber's work, and therefore all subsequent work in the area, owes its existence to the Stratfordians need to produce SOMETHING with which to respond to Oxford.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Since Chambers varies very little from Malone, yes, there can be nothing but doubt about your made-up supposition. Malone's 'An attempt to ascertain the order in which the plays attributed to Shakespeare were written" was published in 1778. As usual (if not as always), what you believe and the facts are entirely at odds.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Okay, so a chronology existed in obscurity since 1778, and then it was plagiarized and repackaged in 1930 at the height of the first wave of the Oxfordian Theory, and (apparently) there CAN be a smidgon of doubt that the plagiarism and repackaging was done in response to the first wave of Oxfordianism. Of course this begs the question Why would Chambers plagiarize and repackage a chronology if it wasn't specifically to respond to the Oxfordians? Maybe he thought he was President of Harvard, and academic honesty didn't apply to himself?
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Since when is building on the scholarship of the past plagiarism? Chambers cited the work of Malone, and of Edward Dowden in his 1875 Shakespeare: A Critical Study of his Mind and Art, and Alfred Pollard's 1909 Shakespeare Folios and Quartos. Would it kill you to use words correctly? Chambers published his chronology, and his Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems (1930), and his The Elizabethan Stage (1923) when he did because that's when he got around to writing them. He was a general scholar of Elizabethan drama, and covered all the bases, as did E.A.J. Honigmann a generation later, and John Jowett a generation after that. The Chronology of Shakespeare's plays has always been of interest to Shakespeare scholars, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Oxfordianism or the Authorship Question. It existed before the SAQ, during its "height" (such as it was), and still exists today, even though Oxfordianism has withered to a handful of logic-challenged conspiracy theorists hunting for codes.
Only a person of great learning and noble birth, much and widely travelled and known, with a rich and varied private library to play with, could have written these works. And even then, they had to have been a very singular person of very singular genius. Every now and then, humanity throws up these kind of special people: Milton; Pope; Wordsworth; Keats; Mary Ann Evans; Jane Austen; Charles Dickens. But 'Shakespeare' seems almost supernatural in their share of gifts. Almost as if something occult or unknowable is going on here. Perhaps 'Shakespeare, the Writer' never existed at all. That he was many men, and women, too, working together and in secret, for a reason and a purpose we shall never discover. I don't know.
@@stretmediq The Works themselves are strong evidence that the writer was highly educated, richly experienced, and socially privileged. The sources that Shakespeare used were not available to the average person, some of them were only available in manuscript form in private libraries that a commoner would not have been allowed to visit without permission, and not without leaving a record. "Shakespeare" might not have owned his library, but it is clear that he had continual unrestricted access to the rarest works available, something that a commoner would never have.
@vetstadiumastroturf5756 so instead of supplying actual evidence all you're capable of is asserting he wasn't educated enough to write those plays in order to make the argument he couldn't have written the plays because he wasn't educated enough 🙄 look up the fallacy of circular reasoning. And while you're at it look up Srinivasa Ramanujan and learn how an "uneducated" person can accomplish amazing intellectual feats with little to go on #fail
@@stretmediq So instead of presenting evidence that would debunk the authorship question, all you are capable of doing is misunderstanding what Circular Logic is. It is not Circular Logic to say that someone did not do something that they are not qualified or capable of doing. Would it be circular to say that Shakespeare did not fly because he had no wings and this lack of wings prevented him from flying? The Stratford Boy didn't fly because he had no wings, and he didn't write the Works of Shakespeare because he lacked the tools for that too. Ramanujan was a mathematician. Math is very different from pretty much every other field of study in that it does not require formal training. Without training and tools could he have learned about falconry, or english law, or the botany of Europe - all fields that Shakespeare demonstrates total mastery over? Ramanujan couldn't master english law because he never went to law school, and neither did anyone named William Shakespeare, which leads one to think that the name might be the pen-name of someone who actually did. IF you have any evidence, I would be glad to discuss it's value.
Does it matter? The text is the text, and if there’s anything the current critical cul de sac has taught us, it is that focusing on the identity of the writer is a poor substitute for literary criticism. The text is rich enough as it is.
Respectfully, I believe it is impossible to fully appreciate the works of Shakespeare until you see it through the eyes of De Vere. It will add a whole new dimension and level of understanding. It saddens me that accomplished critics of Shakespeare, such as Harold Bloom, as well read as he was, could never get past the man from Stratford.
The same exact words will have very different meanings depending on who wrote them. Does Hamlet by Will Shakspere of Stratford have the same meaning as Hamlet by Edward de Vere? I would say no not at all. Hamlet by Shakspere is read at face value, but when it is by Edward de Vere it invites the reader to decipher who and what the Earl is REALLY writing about. This is put forward as one reason why Vere was compelled to hide his identity, i.e. to hide the identities of those he was really writing about.
Hmm, this was a poorly argued video the moment it got to the question of Oxford as a candidate. There is actually lots of proof. People of the time spoke endlessly of De Vere's skill with playwriting and poetry.
@@darylfernandez2153De Vere, himself, had some of it published when he was an adult. It was dreck. Nobody ever said De Vere wrote plays. He was among the best for "comedy and enterlude". He wrote gags and skits, and some mediocre poetry on his best days.
I've waited a long time to hear you at length on this subject, thanks for the treat!
Vincent Bugliosi should have written a book on this subject😂
Thank you for continuing this series; I thought you had stopped!
Merry Christmas!
I shall keep my eyes open for a copy of this book on Amazon..eBay as usual is asking ridiculous money for it..
Merry Christmas to you, Steve & Freida!
You had me at Rimbaud - hahaha.
Great to have you back Steve. Time to catch up on all your videos!
Merry Christmas, Steve!
Just realized this is my 7th Xmas at chez Steve..It has been quite the journey..Thanks Steve
7 years! Good Lord, you poor thing!
@@saintdonoghue "In library tour 2019 little book room#9 " you read a piece of honey tongued viciousness from Cyril Connolly with such gleeful abandon that the memory resonates and still prompts giddiness upon recollection..Moments StSteve. Moments..
Ogburn did a great job synthesizing and unifying a variety of sources. He mostly avoids strawmanning the Stratfordians by using lots of their quotes, many of which admit that the evidence is problematic. He does a great job on "upstart crow" and many Stratfordians no longer cite that reference. He is supplying real information about the 1595 reference -- a record of payment to Kempe, Burbage and WS created by the widow of a grantee. Ogburn points out the payment would/should have been to Heminges since that was his role in the business.
I especially liked Ogburn's analysis of plays like Hamlet being reworked and getting longer and longer such that they are now never presented in their full form -- 5-hours. Clearly the final versions are for print. The idea that illiterate groundlings stood through 5 hours of dense soliloquies is a flawed by product of all the circular reasoning that has distorted our understanding of theater in that era.
It is very easy see that it is impossible for Shakspeare of Stratford on Avon to be the author but as you point out, making a case for an alternative is the more difficult part. What seems to be emerging on both sides of the debate is the idea that not the poems and sonnets but the plays are the effort of many writers reworking material over and over. The "bad quartos" give us evidence of that. Perhaps the problem with looking for "the real author" is that it ignores the collaborative nature of theater in the same way that the Stratford theory does.
Doesn’t WS of Stratford’s will leave money to actor friends from London? Strange thing for a corn merchant to do.
Shakspere (that is how his name is spelled in the will) left rings to some actors, which seems to connect him to the theater. But, Shakspere left nothing to any writers or poets, which doesn't connect him to writing at all. It should be noted that the gift of rings to the actors was written between the lines on the last page of the will, raising a suspicion that they were added at a later date after the will was already signed, casting a little doubt on the will itself.
I think if someone wanted to add lines to the will at a later date to connect the ‘two’ men they would have been more explicit.
@@stuartdurbin There seems to be a few suspicious elements going on here. I think that if the gifts were made when the will was written that the clerk simply would have added another sheet of paper and had Shakspere sign it. It appears that lines were added to a page that had already been signed, so there is no way to know if Shakspere made the gift when he made the will, or if it was added later without his knowledge. IF the gifts are a fake or fraud that were added later, I don't think anyone would have admitted it. Shakspere did die quite suddenly at a young age, supposedly after a night of drinking, just a month or so after composing his will, and a few months before the will was actually registered in London.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Shakespeare is thoroughly documented as being a member of the King's Men. John Heminges was even a witness when Shakespeare bought the gatehouse next to the Blackfriars Theater. A lawsuit brought by Shakespeare in Stratford described him as a member of the Court of King James.
@@Jeffhowardmeade What does "thoroughly documented as being a member of the King's Men" mean? Is this some kind of official term, or do you consider the two things you list as being the sum total requirement of "thoroughly documented"?
you're still awesome to listen too - might you start up the showing of subscribers' pet dog photos again?
Hi! Love your channel ;) curious about your thoughts on the Cate Corrain drama! Love to hear your take!
I'll point out in Edward de Vere's defense that the plays might have been written and in various stages of completion well before they were eventually published. In fact, it's likely they were written and had some small scale productions before official publication. So the discrepancy in dates between Oxford's death and the publications wouldn't rule him out as the prime candidate. But anyway, it's an interesting subject. I need to get to Ogburn's book eventually.
The fact that the later plays are infused with events which occurred after De Vere died would tend to rule him out.
Whatever you say :)
@@pjm9568I'm not the one saying it. Shakespeare did that.
You need to familiarize with the case against Da Vere before arguing this. The entire concept of Tempest revolves around a shipwreck that occurred after Da Veer’s death for instance.
@@mikeprg
There were several accounts of shipwrecks well before that. Oxford even owned a ship that got lost at the Bermudas. I'm not an Oxfordian, but it irks me how disingenuously the evidence regarding a claim is presented by Stratfordian scholars.
Such an interesting subject
Shocking to see this being taken seriously. The authorship question has been debunk more times than stories about Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster.
Yeah I agree. I tend to agree with Steve’s assessments, so was very surprised by this video.
Totally agree Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare they need to just get over it already
Now I get your Bigfoot fascination.
Oh come now! Bigfoot can't possibly be the real author - quill pens are just too small!
@@saintdonoghue 🤣
Part of me thinks that it doesn't really matter. It is the work that matters. The second thing is I do think snobbery is part of it. The possibility that a relative ordinary person could have an imagination like 'Shakespeare' and it must be a noble. Also would a noble writing plays really be that frowned upon. They wrote poetry all the time. I think also that bookish people underestimate the knowledge that you can pick up without books. Also Ben Johnson talks about Shakespeare. Didn't even write a poem to 'My Beloved Mr. William Shakespeare'. Which suggests that Ben Johnson knew him. Doesn't textual analysis demonstrate that whoever 'Shakespeare' was that he and Marlowe worked together on plays. My fundamental problem with the whole thing is why bother? Why 'invent' William Shakespeare. What would be the advantage? But you've got to know people who put on plays. Unless he's something like 'Luther Blisset' that Italian anarchist group that wrote under a single name. I agree there are so many gaps with Shakespeare but what if he was just a bloke who wrote for a bit then gave up. I know the idea that a part-time middle-class bloke from the sticks might have written some of the greatest works of literature seems ridiculous but perhaps it just happened. Anyway, as I said at the beginning in the end does it really matter?
De Vere would have known that Bohemia was land locked, and why would be hand over his best plays to a rival company and not the the acting company he himself patronized. Just a couple of examples of the silly idea that he wrote these plays.
Srinivasa Ramanujan
I agree, the questions and oddities around Shakespeare's authorship are a fascinating topic - no alternate candidate required! (though they are interesting to hear out). Thanks for this discussion and recommendation.
The dates don't line up! Well, not exactly. The dates that don't line up are from timelines that were created AFTER Edward de Vere was identified as Shakespeare, i.e. the timelines were developed to exclude de Vere. Take them with a grain of salt.
The chronology of Shakespeare's plays was first set down by Edmund Malone, 150 years before Looney concocted Oxfordianism.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Modern Chronologies are based on E.K. Chambers 1930 Work "The Problem of Chronology" , which was written and published at the height of the first wave of Oxfordian Theory. There can be no doubt that Chamber's work, and therefore all subsequent work in the area, owes its existence to the Stratfordians need to produce SOMETHING with which to respond to Oxford.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Since Chambers varies very little from Malone, yes, there can be nothing but doubt about your made-up supposition. Malone's 'An attempt to ascertain the order in which the plays attributed to Shakespeare were written" was published in 1778.
As usual (if not as always), what you believe and the facts are entirely at odds.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Okay, so a chronology existed in obscurity since 1778, and then it was plagiarized and repackaged in 1930 at the height of the first wave of the Oxfordian Theory, and (apparently) there CAN be a smidgon of doubt that the plagiarism and repackaging was done in response to the first wave of Oxfordianism. Of course this begs the question Why would Chambers plagiarize and repackage a chronology if it wasn't specifically to respond to the Oxfordians? Maybe he thought he was President of Harvard, and academic honesty didn't apply to himself?
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 Since when is building on the scholarship of the past plagiarism? Chambers cited the work of Malone, and of Edward Dowden in his 1875 Shakespeare: A Critical Study of his Mind and Art, and Alfred Pollard's 1909 Shakespeare Folios and Quartos. Would it kill you to use words correctly?
Chambers published his chronology, and his Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems (1930), and his The Elizabethan Stage (1923) when he did because that's when he got around to writing them. He was a general scholar of Elizabethan drama, and covered all the bases, as did E.A.J. Honigmann a generation later, and John Jowett a generation after that. The Chronology of Shakespeare's plays has always been of interest to Shakespeare scholars, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Oxfordianism or the Authorship Question. It existed before the SAQ, during its "height" (such as it was), and still exists today, even though Oxfordianism has withered to a handful of logic-challenged conspiracy theorists hunting for codes.
Only a person of great learning and noble birth, much and widely travelled and known, with a rich and varied private library to play with, could have written these works. And even then, they had to have been a very singular person of very singular genius. Every now and then, humanity throws up these kind of special people: Milton; Pope; Wordsworth; Keats; Mary Ann Evans; Jane Austen; Charles Dickens.
But 'Shakespeare' seems almost supernatural in their share of gifts. Almost as if something occult or unknowable is going on here. Perhaps 'Shakespeare, the Writer' never existed at all. That he was many men, and women, too, working together and in secret, for a reason and a purpose we shall never discover. I don't know.
What evidence do you have that only a rich man of noble birth who owns a large personal library could have written these plays?
@@stretmediq The Works themselves are strong evidence that the writer was highly educated, richly experienced, and socially privileged. The sources that Shakespeare used were not available to the average person, some of them were only available in manuscript form in private libraries that a commoner would not have been allowed to visit without permission, and not without leaving a record. "Shakespeare" might not have owned his library, but it is clear that he had continual unrestricted access to the rarest works available, something that a commoner would never have.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 'continual unrestricted access to the rarest works available' what sources would those be?
@vetstadiumastroturf5756 so instead of supplying actual evidence all you're capable of is asserting he wasn't educated enough to write those plays in order to make the argument he couldn't have written the plays because he wasn't educated enough 🙄 look up the fallacy of circular reasoning. And while you're at it look up Srinivasa Ramanujan and learn how an "uneducated" person can accomplish amazing intellectual feats with little to go on #fail
@@stretmediq So instead of presenting evidence that would debunk the authorship question, all you are capable of doing is misunderstanding what Circular Logic is.
It is not Circular Logic to say that someone did not do something that they are not qualified or capable of doing. Would it be circular to say that Shakespeare did not fly because he had no wings and this lack of wings prevented him from flying? The Stratford Boy didn't fly because he had no wings, and he didn't write the Works of Shakespeare because he lacked the tools for that too.
Ramanujan was a mathematician. Math is very different from pretty much every other field of study in that it does not require formal training. Without training and tools could he have learned about falconry, or english law, or the botany of Europe - all fields that Shakespeare demonstrates total mastery over? Ramanujan couldn't master english law because he never went to law school, and neither did anyone named William Shakespeare, which leads one to think that the name might be the pen-name of someone who actually did.
IF you have any evidence, I would be glad to discuss it's value.
Does it matter? The text is the text, and if there’s anything the current critical cul de sac has taught us, it is that focusing on the identity of the writer is a poor substitute for literary criticism. The text is rich enough as it is.
It matters to me, because it's interesting to me! Nothing to do with the quality of the text, which I of course love
Respectfully, I believe it is impossible to fully appreciate the works of Shakespeare until you see it through the eyes of De Vere. It will add a whole new dimension and level of understanding.
It saddens me that accomplished critics of Shakespeare, such as Harold Bloom, as well read as he was, could never get past the man from Stratford.
The same exact words will have very different meanings depending on who wrote them. Does Hamlet by Will Shakspere of Stratford have the same meaning as Hamlet by Edward de Vere? I would say no not at all. Hamlet by Shakspere is read at face value, but when it is by Edward de Vere it invites the reader to decipher who and what the Earl is REALLY writing about. This is put forward as one reason why Vere was compelled to hide his identity, i.e. to hide the identities of those he was really writing about.
@@vetstadiumastroturf5756 He hid it so well that nobody noticed, even in his own era.
Hmm, this was a poorly argued video the moment it got to the question of Oxford as a candidate. There is actually lots of proof. People of the time spoke endlessly of De Vere's skill with playwriting and poetry.
Some of his work survives today and none of us would call it “work of genius”. Crazy how some people really wish it was someone else.
@@garbonomics That's because those published under his name were his juvenilia.
@@darylfernandez2153De Vere, himself, had some of it published when he was an adult. It was dreck. Nobody ever said De Vere wrote plays. He was among the best for "comedy and enterlude". He wrote gags and skits, and some mediocre poetry on his best days.